More successor than sequel: hands on with Assassin’s Creed 2

Ars goes hands on with the upcoming Assassin's Creed 2 and finds a game that …

"It doesn't really feel like a sequel," Ubisoft's Charles Randall told me as I sat down to play Assassin's Creed 2 for the first time at a recent press event in Toronto. "It feels like a whole new game."

And that should be welcome news. Because while it wasn't a terrible game by any stretch of the imagination, the first Assassin's Creed certainly had its problems. At times it felt like the game's ambitions were far greater than what the developers were actually able to create, leaving gamers with an ambitious but somewhat disappointing experience. And that's something Ubisoft has worked very hard to fix in the sequel.

During the half-hour or so I spent with the game, the major difference I saw was that of polish. The action flowed smoothly and organically, and bugs—which often seemed abundant in the first game—were almost nowhere to be seen. The large, open world you're given to explore also felt much more real thanks to small details, like the ability to throw money to beggars, causing a crowd to form, with greedy hands clamoring for cash.

You'll also see nonplayable characters interacting with one another for the first time. When a thief attempted to steal my money and failed, I naturally set off after him in order to exact some revenge. But I wasn't the only one, as a guard was also chasing the thief. It seems that the AI is smarter this time around. No longer can you simply dive into a bale of hay to hide from pursuing guards. They will now search areas more thoroughly, and might even give those hay bales a poke to get you out of your hiding place.

It's details like this that makes the 15th century Italy depicted in the game feel truly alive.

The reason for this, Randall explained, has to do with the amount of time the team actually had to make the game. On the first Assassin's Creed, the developers at Ubisoft Montreal spent a year creating the new engine, leaving them with just one year to develop the entire game. And for an experience as massive as AC, that's not a lot of time. This time around, the team had a full two years of development time, allowing them to add a number of new features while polishing other aspects of the game.

And it certainly shows.

Though I wasn't able to play the more guided experience that most players will enjoy—instead I was simply thrust into the game's world, able to mess around as I pleased—there was plenty to experience. The mini-map in the lower right corner of the screen was littered with things to do: from optional assassinations to actual story missions to simply running around the city finding hidden loot or interacting with the crowd.

The side missions I played were of the usual "go here, kill him" variety. For example, one mission involved climbing up to a fairly tall tower—in an area where the rooftops are plentiful with guards with bows—and taking out a madman who had taken up residence there, spouting religious nonsense.

There are also new, hidden areas called "Assassin's Tombs," which feel as if they were ripped straight out of the Prince of Persia: Sands of Time trilogy. When you enter into one of these segments, the camera pans around, giving you the lay of the land and allowing you to devise a strategy from getting from where you are to where you're supposed to be. Though optional, these areas can be quite challenging; Randall explained they can take anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour to complete.

The entire game, I was told, can take anywhere from 13-40 hours to complete, indicating that there will be a wealth of optional content for those who choose to explore it.

As for the gameplay itself, that too feels like a refinement on the original. The combat is more nuanced, with a heavy emphasis on timing and one-shot kills, while the free-running and climbing feels slightly less automatic, requiring a little more skill and determination to reach out-of-the-way areas.

Of course, I was only able to experience a very small slice of AC2, so it's hard to judge, given the sheer size of the game. Randall told me early on in the demo that it would be impossible to show even a fraction of what the game had to offer in such a short time.

"So what's new?" I asked him.

"Everything," he answered, with a smile.

We'll be able to see just how new Assassin's Creed 2 feels very soon, as the game will be coming to the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 on November 17. The PC version, meanwhile, will be available in early 2010.

I really thought the combat from Batman Arkham Asylum was well thought out and executed, and I hope Assassin's Creed 2 is similar.

If you haven't played Batman, the combat is simple to understand but hard to master, implemented in a way that makes it simple and fun for button mashing, but also strategic for people who want to score highly.

I think there's some historical revisionism going on here. I, personally, don't recall AC being very buggy, thought it was amazingly immersive, and once you re-learned how to do counter-attacks, one-shot kills were common.

Yeah, you couldn't swim.

Edit: I also thought, at the time, "hey this system would make for an awesome Batman game..."

Originally posted by swalsh76:I think there's some historical revisionism going on here. I, personally, don't recall AC being very buggy, thought it was amazingly immersive, and once you re-learned how to do counter-attacks, one-shot kills were common.

Yeah, you couldn't swim.

Edit: I also thought, at the time, "hey this system would make for an awesome Batman game..."

Yeah it was just the PC version that was really buggy. And I agree the game was immersive but that couldn't make up for its shortcommings. I'm hoping for a great followup. It just goes to show you what AC1 would have been if they had the 3 years they should of had to make it.

There were a few comments about the original locking up on consoles (mostly PS3 iirc) and the PC version had it's share of issues (like trying to exit the game) but it was a decent game. The original really polarized people - either they hated the repetitive missions and combat, or loved it, but it sounds like the sequel fixes most of the issues people had.

Personally, I liked the first one so am looking forward to this. I think it'll be a post-holiday purchase though, with Forza 3 and MW2 filling most of my gaming time (and I really want to play through the first Mass Effect before the sequel arrives.)

Originally posted by swalsh76:I think there's some historical revisionism going on here. I, personally, don't recall AC being very buggy, thought it was amazingly immersive, and once you re-learned how to do counter-attacks, one-shot kills were common.

Yeah, you couldn't swim.

Edit: I also thought, at the time, "hey this system would make for an awesome Batman game..."

Yeah it was just the PC version that was really buggy. And I agree the game was immersive but that couldn't make up for its shortcommings. I'm hoping for a great followup. It just goes to show you what AC1 would have been if they had the 3 years they should of had to make it.

The PC Version may have been buggy at one point, but it's the version I own now, and it runs smooth. I've completed most of the game (and my brother completely completed it on a separate PC) and haven't encountered any real problems. Thank you, $5 deal on Steam!

Originally posted by swalsh76:I think there's some historical revisionism going on here. I, personally, don't recall AC being very buggy, thought it was amazingly immersive, and once you re-learned how to do counter-attacks, one-shot kills were common.

Yeah, you couldn't swim.

Edit: I also thought, at the time, "hey this system would make for an awesome Batman game..."

Yeah it was just the PC version that was really buggy. And I agree the game was immersive but that couldn't make up for its shortcommings. I'm hoping for a great followup. It just goes to show you what AC1 would have been if they had the 3 years they should of had to make it.

Could explain my experience, since I played it on the 360 and had nothing but smooth sailing.

Originally posted by MoistDinosaur:I loved it on the 360, although i wish the combat was less about perfectly timing a counter-attack and more about just attacking. Very excited for the sequel

For my part, I loved that facet of the combat. It was a ton more satisfying, for me, to pull off that counter-attack than to spam attacks. It felt much more refined and "assassin-like", for lack of a better way of explaining it.

Never played the first one (been meaning too) but if it's anything like batman, I probably won't be buying this. I never understood what the hype was about being Batman, and having to creep around gun-toting idiots because the Bat would never, heaven forbid, pick up a gun and use it.

Originally posted by foxfire_1:Much like the last Assassin's Creed, I'm willing to bet I'll play this for 10 minutes at a friend's house, and then by the time it comes out on the PC I won't be interested whatsoever.

Thanks for thinking of the PC Ubisoft.

Being both a PC and console gamer (of a sort), there are games I could not find myself playing on PC, and vice versa. Assassin's Creed's interface is definitely a "console optimal" thing for me.

They cheaped out on implementing them in the original (some line of crap about subtitles not working in an open-world game, but we've seen it before, so bollocks), and that essentially kept the person I know who most wants to play these games from playing them.

I haven't seen any information on this...and the lack of demo means I can't check.

Originally posted by swalsh76:I think there's some historical revisionism going on here. I, personally, don't recall AC being very buggy, thought it was amazingly immersive, and once you re-learned how to do counter-attacks, one-shot kills were common.

Yeah, you couldn't swim.

Edit: I also thought, at the time, "hey this system would make for an awesome Batman game..."

Yeah, I think this is the case as well. I never had any problems with it on my 360. I am really looking forward to this as I loved the first one. I really liked the immersion it provided except for the flag run informant missions. That really broke the "real assassin" feel of the game for me. What informant would ever strew a series of flags around for you to free run a course just to get a bit of information. That's my only gripe...

That's good to hear. That is precisely what I didn't like about the first one. I guess I'm just not a fan of Ubisoft. If I was to be generous I'd say maybe 1 out of 10 games they release I might enjoy.

Originally posted by JabberWockey:I never understood what the hype was about being Batman, and having to creep around gun-toting idiots because the Bat would never, heaven forbid, pick up a gun and use it.

Because that's the lore/backstory for the character. He doesn't ever deliberately kill - and if you shoot at someone with a gun, you're pretty much conceding that you might be killing them.

It would immensely break immersion for the fans if the game allowed Batman to pick up the sniper rifle and gun down the thugs from the top of the cathedral.

Assassin's Creed is interesting in the following sense: The game world is amazing - the detail, the architecture, the overall look. The game mechanics are perfect (running, climbing, jumping, fighting). But it feels like a demo for a new engine with some half-assed gameplay stuck on as an afterthought. It's almost like the designers and artists and developers worked really hard for a year to produce a perfect environment, and then the game designers were too lazy to figure out how to make decent missions.

The missions in Assasin's Creed (1) are quite lame:

"Eavesdropping" is totally lame - you sit on a bench and press a button.

"Interrogation" is lame - you punch a guy a few times, but the guards don't care.

"Informer/get the flags" is lame -- very contrived and silly. The guy says he lost his flags, and wants me to get them in less than 3 minutes, but he was willing to wait for hours for me to show up and start ?

"Informer/assasinate X people" is somewhat lame, but not too bad. Stabbing a few guards in the back is kinda fun, but not very exciting.

"Save Citizen" - you fight some guys, big deal. No thinking involved.

The main 9 assasinations are OK, but not very well done. As long as I'm willing to kill 20 guards to escape, there is not much that can go wrong. Sometimes the target runs away so I have to chase him -- somewhat interesting, but not that great.

And yet there is something compelling about the game. I'm mostly comparing Assassin's Creed to Splinter Cell, and the missions in Splinter Cell are so much more rewarding. Every guard that I eliminate/bypass in Splinter Cell feels somewhat satisfying. The game world in Splinter Cell is quite limited compared to Assassin's Creed, and Sam Fisher is not that good at climbing/jumping. But the missions have much more of a "puzzle" aspect to them and as a result, the gameplay in Splinter Cell is much bettter.

This is funny because Assassin's Creed was made by the same studio (Ubisoft Montreal) as some of the Splinter Cell games.

I hope the designers have learned something from Assassin's Creed and have put some real effort into designing compelling missions for Assassin's Creed 2. Because just "collecting flags" and "eavesdropping from a bench" in 3 Italian cities is just not good enough.

Originally posted by JabberWockey:I never understood what the hype was about being Batman, and having to creep around gun-toting idiots because the Bat would never, heaven forbid, pick up a gun and use it.

Because that's the lore/backstory for the character. He doesn't ever deliberately kill - and if you shoot at someone with a gun, you're pretty much conceding that you might be killing them.

It would immensely break immersion for the fans if the game allowed Batman to pick up the sniper rifle and gun down the thugs from the top of the cathedral.

I was going to say that, but I figured that if he didn't know that already he was not a big enough Batman fan to truly enjoy the game anyway.

To the subject at hand, I was kind of hoping after all the futurist crap they beat us over the head with in the original that maybe they were going to go for a more modern theme, hopefully they will get around to that in upcoming sequels. I gave the first on a playthrough on 360, I found it repetitive but overall enjoyable, that said I have never sat down for a second playthrough and have little desire to do so. Hopefully this will improve on the original.

I also incredibly enjoyed the 1st game, also with exception the flag gathering informant missions. Loved the game play, loved the story line. And can't wait for the sequel. In fact, i just preordered it this morning. Amazon has it for $55, with a $5 off coupon (amznacii) and free release day delivery (not sure if that is a prime only option).

Originally posted by JabberWockey:I never understood what the hype was about being Batman, and having to creep around gun-toting idiots because the Bat would never, heaven forbid, pick up a gun and use it.

Because that's the lore/backstory for the character. He doesn't ever deliberately kill - and if you shoot at someone with a gun, you're pretty much conceding that you might be killing them.

It would immensely break immersion for the fans if the game allowed Batman to pick up the sniper rifle and gun down the thugs from the top of the cathedral.

Yeah, I know

I am well aware of what makes a great movie premise, and not a video game. But then again, everyone has an opinion, amirite?

Originally posted by ChesterChi:Assassin's Creed is interesting in the following sense: The game world is amazing - the detail, the architecture, the overall look. The game mechanics are perfect (running, climbing, jumping, fighting). But it feels like a demo for a new engine with some half-assed gameplay stuck on as an afterthought. It's almost like the designers and artists and developers worked really hard for a year to produce a perfect environment, and then the game designers were too lazy to figure out how to make decent missions.

The missions in Assasin's Creed (1) are quite lame:

"Eavesdropping" is totally lame - you sit on a bench and press a button.

"Interrogation" is lame - you punch a guy a few times, but the guards don't care.

"Informer/get the flags" is lame -- very contrived and silly. The guy says he lost his flags, and wants me to get them in less than 3 minutes, but he was willing to wait for hours for me to show up and start ?

"Informer/assasinate X people" is somewhat lame, but not too bad. Stabbing a few guards in the back is kinda fun, but not very exciting.

"Save Citizen" - you fight some guys, big deal. No thinking involved.

The main 9 assasinations are OK, but not very well done. As long as I'm willing to kill 20 guards to escape, there is not much that can go wrong. Sometimes the target runs away so I have to chase him -- somewhat interesting, but not that great.

And yet there is something compelling about the game. I'm mostly comparing Assassin's Creed to Splinter Cell, and the missions in Splinter Cell are so much more rewarding. Every guard that I eliminate/bypass in Splinter Cell feels somewhat satisfying. The game world in Splinter Cell is quite limited compared to Assassin's Creed, and Sam Fisher is not that good at climbing/jumping. But the missions have much more of a "puzzle" aspect to them and as a result, the gameplay in Splinter Cell is much bettter.

This is funny because Assassin's Creed was made by the same studio (Ubisoft Montreal) as some of the Splinter Cell games.

I hope the designers have learned something from Assassin's Creed and have put some real effort into designing compelling missions for Assassin's Creed 2. Because just "collecting flags" and "eavesdropping from a bench" in 3 Italian cities is just not good enough.

This one has much more promise. I think what people have to remember is that the climbing system and croud AI are not simple things to develop. Most of the time in the first games development cycle was probably used for that. The second time around they are just tweaking that system that is already in place and there should be much more content as far as gameplay is concerned. I really think AC1 should have had more time before it was released.

Girlfriend has the Xbox 360 version on pre-order, apparently we're going to share it (luckily I borrowed her copy of Dragon Age: Origins last night and am rather liking it, so I'll have that to play while she's hogging AC2 )

Originally posted by Demondeluxe:I was going to say that, but I figured that if he didn't know that already he was not a big enough Batman fan to truly enjoy the game anyway.

I've heard a lot about the new Batman game and yet I'm not a Batman fan -- I've seen the movies and of course the old TV series and that's about it. Would I not enjoy the game?

I believe so. I'm in the same boat as you, I've seen the movies, watched the TV shows, but not read the comics or have been a huge fan. I very much enjoyed Batman: Arkham Asylum, I recommend it highly.